About your Search

20130201
20130201
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
at winning that nomination. mitt romney had also run in 2008. remember? he lost to john mccain that year. but that year, 2008, also was not john mccain's first effort at winning the republican presidential nomination. he had run before as well. he had run in the year 2000, when he lost to george w. bush. and while that john mccain campaign and his loss that year has mostly been remembered for the egregiously racist dirty tricks played against john mccain in the south carolina primary that year, that's mostly what we think of when we think of him losing to george w. bush that year, now what is starting to become the more salient thing about that losing run, about that losing attempt at winning the republican presidential nomination, what seems more salient now is who john mccain's national co-chair was for that run. it was republican senator chuck hagel. there he is. you can see him in the little circle on the left there. with john mccain's entourage as john mccain was getting ready to launch his presidential bid back in 2000. this is the same chuck hagel who is president obama's nominee
"hardball." ♪ >>> i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start with this. why is john mccain so angry? 40 years after the vietnam p.o.w.s came home, the most famous of them is angrier than ever. why is america, why are we fighting the vietnam war all over again in the united states senate? the ticked off vitriol against chuck hagel. what is it about is? is it for show? is it about something hagel said in the cloakroom? is it the unfairness of vietnam itself that some went and sond didn't. is it about johnson's inability to win that war or end it. what burns so deeply in john mccain these days? it seems to excite those who knew nothing about vietnam but want to replay it. we big into the deep well of resentment purning in john mccain's patriotic heart. a resentment not against the north vietnamese who imprisoned and tr toured him all those years, no the against george w. bush and his political henchmen who tried to stain mccain's reputation back in 2000, but against a guy who fought against fear and ralliesed against wounds just like he did in the same army of america's long nightmare in v
. senator john mccain took the lead and set the tone early on. >> our concerns pertain to the quality of your professional judgment and your worldview on critical areas of national security, including security in the middle east. >> john mccain did not always have grave concerns about chuck hagel's worldview. in fact, he named chuck hagel a co-chair of his 2000 presidential campaign. >> my fellow americans, i introduce you to a great republican, a great american leader, my friend, john mccain! >> how come mccain didn't get that kind of greeting, huh? or hagel, should i say. not only were hagel and mccain good buddies, john mccain wanted to give hagel the exact job he's up for right now. he told voters in new hampshire, "there's a lot of people that could be secretary of state -- secretary of defense. one of them i think is senator chuck hagel." but mccain sure has a different view of hagel today. he still can't get over hagel's opposition to the surge in iraq. >> do you stand by that -- those comments, senator hagel? >> well, senator, i stand by them because i made them. >> were you r
. >> let me get this straight. you think the whole yes or no back and forth between john mccain and chuck hagel on the 2007 iraq surge was actually par for the course, that that was -- >> in fact, kind of interesting, right? >> in terms of a psychodrama. >> the republican party was over the iraq war, where they are attacking him as for opposing the iraq war. >> it's not that i don't think we can talk about the iraq war or the war in afghanistan for that matter, but the notion that you should have a yes or no answer to the iraq surge, which in many ways -- john mccain thinks the history books have been written on this. i believe -- >> no, it's still an open debate. absolutely. >> it's ongoing. we still -- >> people did vote against the iraq surge. that seems to be a totally relevant thing to talk about now. >> i think the iraq surge is relevant. i think asking for a yes or no answer on it seems particularly short-sighted. >> not defending that. >> in the "new york times" there is an op ed that says the senators, especially republicans, did a poor job of drawing substance out of the moment,
to know that his problems were going to come from john mccain, ted cruz, lindsey graham, and a couple of the other republican conservatives. it just seemed to go completely off track. not the confirmation, but the performance. >> well, here's what happened. he was bad. i mean, there's no other kind of way to put it. these things -- these public kwurmation hearings are at least part performance, andrea, and i would argue they're mostly performance, and you are right. he just seemed sort of ill equipped to manage it. only thing i could think of was this. strategically speaking. chuck hagel and his people decided going into this that, yes, he had a few issues, but they had already sort of been publicly litigated and had proven to be not disqualifying. that is, he had got tony this point. therefore, he should just take sort of a passive stance, let ted cruz, let john mccain, let them lecture him sort of be apologetic and say i did the best i that i could, but not go on the attack, not be aggressive, be under the theory that if nothing else came out that ultimately the republican senators
't help, of course, is that his former good friend, john mccain, just eviscerated him, grilled him, didn't give him a chance. yes or no. give me an answer. were you correct or incorrect? i mean, there is a way to try to do that, but clearly he came with a very hostile attitude. and it was very painful to watch. >> yeah. awkward at times. >> i mean, john mccain, mika, didn't let him answer a question. i'm sorry, out of that exchange, it was not chuck hagel who looked bad. >> ted cruz looked even worse. >> yeah. >> oh, my god. >> we're going to show all those coming up. >> he wasn't prepared, mika, in a lot of ways that were concerning. i think, again, the democrats, republicans, independents alike, if the republicans party thinks badgering an ill-prepared witness that way is going to help them with middle america, they don't know middle america. they could have just let him talk around in circles, but it was -- you know, you talk about the new senator from texas, john mccain -- >> i agree with you. >> as joe manchin said, it was embarrassing. >> compare it to a week ago, to a very prepare
, pure and simple. from the mouths of john mccain and lindsey graham as they slashed away at war hero hagel. badgering the witness is too nice a description. the hawks swirled like buzzards sweeping down, pecking and pulling at the skin of a former colleague who dared to say this country's been too ready to enter wars the american people quickly wish we'd never gotten into. what's with this hatred now centered in the american sunbelt? what do we make of this poll that shows two out of three texas republicans now want our president impeached? why the cussedness, why the range war, why the hatred of anyone who dares to stand with obama? why can't politics be a matter of belief and honest disagreement, not hatred? why the sick little intramurals we saw today? we begin with senator jeanne shaheen of new hampshire. i want you to watch this back-and-forth between john mccain and the witness today, chuck hagel. let's take a look. >> were you correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or
vietnam veterans john mccain and hagel were mavericks in the senate. in 2000 hagel co-chaired mccain's campaign. he was only one of a handful of senators who endorsed him and at a town hall in nashua, new hampshire, mccain even floated this possibility -- >> as far as secretary of defense is concerned, there's a lot of people that could do that. one of them i think is senator chuck hagel. >> but yesterday the air in the hearing room was thick. maybe it was bitterness. we don't know. mccain may feel about his old friend as mccain hammered hagel for the opposition to the 2007 troop surge in iraq. >> were you correct or incorrect, yes or no? >> my reference to the surge being -- >> are you going to anxious the question, senator hagel? the question is, were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> well, i'm not going to give you a -- a yes-or-no answer on a lot of things. >> let the record show you refused to answer that question. >> by the way, incoming secretary of state john kerry who glided through his nomination hearing was also opposed to the iraq surge.
crimes? >> john mccain thought this was the big question. >> did you disagree on president obama on the surge in afghanistan? >> but in fact this is the most pressing question facing the new secretary of defense. >> when we hear report that is there are upwards of 19,000 sexual assaults in the military against women it is unacceptable. i need a strong commitment from you that you will treat our ment military families in the way that you would look after your own. >> on the issue of sexual assaults the devil is the military i don't know if you have seen "the in visible war". >> yes. >> i would ask that your commitment to the prosecution and holding accountable the people who are involved in this but also the victim. >> yes, i will agree to that. >> yes, sexual assault in the military is the issue facing the secretary of defense. he has no voice on his country's policy on israel. every minute spent on that today in that hearing was a complete waste of time. and there is no disagreement on this country's policy towards israel. all democrats in the senate disagree with republicans on
. the president's nominee to replace leon panetta as defense secretary. kelly o'donnell has more. >> john mccain seized on hagel's vocal opposition to the surge of troops in iraq in 2007. >> the question is were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straight forward question. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer. >> over his 2008 comments related to israel that a "jewish lobby," "intimidates a lot of people in congress." >> name one person in your opinion who is intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> well, first -- >> name one. >> i don't know. >> hagel was repeatedly pressed by both democrats and republicans to make clear his commitment to israel's security. >> i strongly support israel. >> and clarify his stand on iran. he incorrectly referred to the policy on iran and nuclear weapons as containment. >> i've just been handed a note that i misspoke. >> reporter: he said he fully backs the president's position that iran cannot be allowed to get nuclear weapons and says the u.s. should talk to iran. >> that's kelly o'donnell reporting. >>> three stories th
john mccain who grilled hagel on opposing the 2007 u.s. troop surge in iraq. >> wiere you correct or incorret when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? yes or no? >> my reference to -- >> are you going to answer the question, senator hagel? the question is, were you right or wrong. that's a pretty straight forward question. >> well, i -- >> i would like the answer whether you're right or wrong and then you're free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer. >> well, let the record show you refuse to answer that question. please go ahead. >> well, if you would like me to explain why -- >> actually, i would like an answer, yes or no? >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. it's far more complicated than that. my answer is i'll defer that judgment to history. >> i think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir. and you're on the wrong side of it. >> hagel was also questioned on his comments referring to a jewish lobby. he suggested intim
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)